Affermative Action
Two words that can bring about emotionally charged debates on the validity of this policy. Is it a fair practice, as proponents argue, or simply a form of reverse discrimination? It is not always been easy to decide on this issue -- for the Supreme Court or society. As it intended, affirmative action means that people from a particular group should enjoy special consideration or benefits in job placement or college admissions. Usually, when one speaks of affirmative action, it is in relation to racial discrimination (although women, as a minority group, are also included), and some people feel that the government should have unrestricted freedom in developing plans to make up for past offenses. Other people argue that enforcing this plan is little more than an obviouse reverse discrimination, and it should not be allowed. The Supreme Court has placed affirmative action plans into two basic groups--quota plans and race-plus plans. Under a quota plan, a state or local government has to use different criteria when considering someone of a minority group for a job or admission to a university. There is usually a quota for the number of people of the particular group who must be granted bene
Among other things, a commitment to affirmative action, whether mandated by law or encouraged voluntarily produces vigilance, requiring employers (or college admissions officers) to act in a manner that ensures that womenand minorities will receive a fair chance (M. When one considers that it is likely that white women have benefited the most from affirmative action, it seems odd that it is these men should condemn it when they are often married to employed women whose jobs help support their families (M. Although we are far from the point of complete racial and gender integration, there may be the appearance that this has already happened because of small gains in these areas, and some people may perceive this as not needing further change. This is an important consideration when discussing the merits of affirmative action. According to Philadelphia Tribune writer, Bernard Anderson, Although white men comprise less than 40 percent of the labor force, they are 96 percent of corporate CEOs. Some people continue to argue that two wrongs don't make a right, that just because there has been a history of discrimination against minority groups, giving them preferential treatment to the exclusion of other qualified workers is not a valid reason to enforce the policy. Not terribly surprising, left to their own devices, businesses didn't hire as many minorities as they would have been compelled to under the affirmative action policy. Affirmative action, according to Margaret Anderson, editor of Gender & Society, places value on the representation and inclusion of diverse groups for the good of an organization or institution (405). To the limited extent that we work in a more integrated environment, affirmative action is largelyresponsible (M. Ingrid Scott-Weekley, director of Grand Rapids Equal Opportunity Department, states that without an affirmative action policy, the city would return to a good faith effort, something it instituted in 1989. It is slightly incongruous that there is such disagreement about the benefits of affirmative action among white males. Commission on Civil Rights, says that the current debates on affirmative action should be viewed as a Awake-up call because people are now taking another look at the effects of racial and gender discrimination over the past 30 years.
Common topics in this essay:
Supreme Court,
Gender Society,
Doverspike Winfred,
Falbaum PG,
Civil Rights,
Opportunity Department,
Constance Horner,
affirmative action,
PG Regardless,
Affirmative Action,
Rights Commission,
affirmative action policy,
action policy,
anderson 405,
racial gender,
white males,
race gender,
reverse discrimination,
405 affirmative,
college admissions,
405 affirmative action,
anderson 405 affirmative,
action recently,
affirmative action recently,
1 affirmative action,
|
Acceptance Essays
